Rss Feed
Linkedin button

Basics of Heat Transfer: Understanding the Physics of Global Warming

Basics of Heat Transfer: Understanding the Physics of Global Warming

The temperature on Earth is a heat transfer problem.  This post will outline the basics physics involved.  First of all you have to determine the sources of heat for Earth.  The main source of heat for the Earth is the Sun (S).  Much smaller sources of heating on Earth are the thermal heat from geothermal sources and stellar radiation.  Geothermal energy has been decreasing over the life of the Earth and presently is likely too small to have any significant effect on temperatures.  Stellar radiation probably varies over huge cycles as the Solar System orbits the Milky Way, but is still small compared to the Sun.

The next question is whether S varies as a function of time.  The answer is yes.  For instance, sun spots cause variations in S.  Unfortunately, our physics does not allow us to model S(t).  At best we only have a vague idea based on historical evidence and what we know about other similar stars.  However, no one with certainty can say that the Sun’s output will not change radically the next year.  We have data on the Sun’s output that at best goes back with any accuracy 800 years.  Eight hundred years is not statistically significant compared to the 5 billion years of Earth and statistical modeling would still just be a guess.  We know similar stars eventually expand to several times the Sun’s present size and its output changes radically.  In addition, the amount of Solar radiation reaching Earth varies based on the variation in Earth’s orbit Milankovitch cycles.  These can be predicted and show a strong connection with Ice Ages, although all the mechanisms are not known.

Some of the solar radiation that hits Earth’s atmosphere is absorbed and some is reflected.  In addition, the Earth radiates some of its energy into space.  The amount of solar radiation that is reflected varies over time based on the different spectrum of light hitting the Earth and based on changes in the Earth’s magnetic field and clouds.  These variations are not well known and cannot be accurately modeled.  The amount of solar radiation that is absorbed necessarily varies also.  Things that affect the amount of absorption include clouds, greenhouse gases, absorption by the surface of the Earth and changes in Earth’s magnetic field.  Of the greenhouse gases, water vapor makes up up 95% of the greenhouse gas effect – almost all water vapor in the atmosphere occurs naturally.  CO2 represents about 3.6% of the greenhouse effect gases.  However, only 0.117% of this is man-made.  All man-made greenhouse gases consist of only 2.8% of the total.  The whole theory of AGW (Anthropomorphic Global Warming) is based on this single factor.

Our model does not include the radiation of heat from the Earth, let’s call it E.  All bodies radiate heat.  Roughly the amount of heat radiated from Earth will be equal to the surface area of the atmosphere.  However, the surface area of the Earth will vary based on the temperature and solar wind.  PV=nRT.  As the temperature rises the Volume and Pressure will increase.  No one can accurately model this radiative cooling.  In addition, there will be cooling because of the loss of matter.

So far we have the energy part of the equation.  In order to convert this into a temperature on Earth we have to the specific heat of air, land – including the different geographic regions, and water.  While it would be possible to determine some sort of average with some accuracy, this will not suffice because the air and water will move based on localized heating.  This will cause variations in the surface temperature and the atmospheric temperatures, which would be difficult to relate back to the model and vice versa.  No one can provide a good model for this term.

So what we have is an equation for the temperature on Earth T(t) which is the product of the Energy absorbed times the specific heat.  The energy absorbed is a function of the energy hitting Earth, which includes the S – Sun output, stellar radiation and geothermal energy.  We do not have an accurate model of the Sun’s output.  We do not know if it will suddenly increase or decrease.  The best we know is what has happened in the recent past.  We do not know or have good model for the amount of energy that is absorbed.  We do not know or have good model of the amount of energy emitted from Earth and we do not have a good handle on the specific heat or how to relate it to observed temperatures.  Despite all this ignorance, we are to believe that the effect of man-made greenhouse can be accurately predicted.  This is not science, it is guessing.  To pretend we can predict average global temperatures within a tenth of a degree is absurd – it is debatable whether we can measure them with that sort of accuracy.)


Failures of AGW models:

1) They do not explain Ice Ages or subsequent warming periods.  (I welcome comments, but if you support AGW you must provide a model that shows why ice ages occur or it will be deleted – I am not going to waste my time going down rabbit holes.)

2) CO2 levels generally rise after the Earth has warmed not vice versa.  The likely reason for this is that the oceans hold enormous amounts of dissolved CO2.  When the temperature of the oceans increase they release CO2.

3) No rational explanation is given for why AGW models focus on CO2 and other greenhouse gases, while ignoring the problems in their model.

4) The last 15 years have proven that AGW models are just plain wrong – but the excuse is we need more time.  However, they were selective in their time periods in the first place.  There was significant cooling in from 1965 to 1980, but they ignored this data and called anyone who pointed this out part of the Flat Earth Society.

5) There was significant warming from 1900-1940, but this is not correlated to increases in man-made CO2 and AGW models do not explain this.

6) The Japanese (IBUKU) satellite show that Industrial Countries actually are net carbon sinks.

7) The shows that AGW is a religion, it is not a science.


Supporters of AGW Lie, fudge data, or just make up data.

1) The 1st UN IPCC summary lied about what the scientists on the panel had said.

2) They lied about the temperature data in Climate Gate ignoring the Little Ice Age.

3) They claim that the number of polar bears is decreasing, this is just not true.

4) They claim the oceans are rising – this is not true.

5) They claim that the Greenland Ice Sheet is melting at an alarming rate – this is not true

6) They claim that the number of major weather events has increased – the evidence shows the exact opposite.

This list is almost endless, but I will stop here.


Supporters of AGW exaggerate the problems of a warmer Earth and ignore the Benefits

1) During the 5 billion years Earth has been around it has been in an Ice Age the majority of the time.  Only during the recent warming periods have human civilizations thrived.

2) The North Pole could melt completely and the Earth’s Oceans would not be one millimeter higher.

3) A warmer Earth will produce more crops and reduce weather related deaths.


Supporters of AGW hate Humans

AGW supporters are the same environmentalists that will tell you there are too many people on Earth.  Their solution to every problem is fewer human beings.  There have been several very inexpensive solutions proposed on how to deal with Global Warming if it were true.  The environmentalists were not interested in technological solutions, because are anti-technology, anti-human and EVIL.


  1. Stepback,

    You clearly failed to read the post. I am taking down you comments until:
    1) You find one AGW model that explains the Ice Age
    2) You read the post and note that I said the whole attempt to model the climate is BS. We don’t know enough at best we can make guesses based on historical examples. – You cannot prove AGW by attacking another model. But I explained that we do not have the knowledge necessary to do anything called science in this area – especially predict 0.1 degree changes in the temperature on Earth.
    3) If the point of you comment was that the temperature on Earth is not a heat transfer problem then you either do not understand elementary physic and/or you have become so blinded by your religious faith in AGW as to ignore.

  2. The “A” in AGW stands for Anthropogenic.

    Proponents for AGW do not claim that ALL climate is AGW
    Of course not
    There was climate before the Industrial Revolution and there will be climate after our species is gone.

    A recently aired author on CSPAN Book TV said that it was good for people who do not agree to nonetheless debate their points. The worse thing is to be in an echo chamber. You’ve taken me out of my usual echo chamber in that I had to revisit parts of the “solar forcing” argument. Alas I have not gotten you to step out of yours. :-(

  3. Stepback,

    You failed to comply with one simple request – find a AGW model that explains the Ice Ages – if it cannot do that then it is absurd to take them seriously. I have shown that no climate model can be considered science – if you do not compile with the request I will delete you comments.

  4. Hello Dale
    The global Warmers irritate me.I made a calculation . If the ice on Greenland melted off 262 Feet it would raise thee ocean 1 foot. The trouble is there is very little ice near the ocean shores of Greenland!

    When the global warers say the ocean is warmed up 1 degree where did they stick the thermameter?Where was El Nina and El Nenyo when they trook their temperature?

    Drilling deep in the AntAntic shows warming and cooling cycles going back thousnads of years. Sedimentary rocks have been found in both Artic ans antartic locations. I recently read that one side of antarctics is warming and the other side is collecting more ice and snow!

    The carbon tax scheme is ere one more tax and spend scheme.

    Al Gore is making big money studying the global warming problem at the expense of the US taxpayers.

    Global warming means more sea evaporation then more rain and better crops.

    I heard a celebrity say we will have famine, drought, flooding and cannibalism. I have been looking around to see who looks edible. Some look too fat and some look tough and stringy. What is it dry flooding or wet droughts?

    Don Kesinger

  5. Hey Don,

    Good to hear from you. As I attempted to point out, we do not nearly have enough knowledge to make any credible predictions – it is all just a bunch of guess posing as science. AGW focuses on one very small part of the equation and says that it drives everything else without a shred of evidence.

  6. Dale,

    AGW/ CC is not my area of focus and expertise.
    But fyi & in regard to denialist lines of attack, other folk have done the come back talking points thing.

    Here is a list:

    In so far as name calling, both you & I have degrees in EE

    We know that in that field (EE) we “model” circuits
    We may choose to model them as AC-only circuits
    We may choose to model them as DC-only circuits (DC analysis)
    We may choose to assume that all elements are purely linear analog ones or ideal digital ones

    In no circumstance do we claim that any one of our “models” is good for ALL purposes (i.e. all frequencies, all voltages, all temperatures or other ambient conditions, all variations in circuit component fabrication, etc.)

    But that is what you are demanding of those who believe in human forced Climate Change

    How unfair is that? (Rhetorical answer: very)

    Time to let go of this one and move back to fighting the good fight against them who wish to destroy patents and inventors.

    Have you looked at PERKINELMER v. INTEMA (CAFC Nov. 20, 2012) holding that a medical test is a pure abstraction and thus not deserving of patent protection?


  7. p.s. Not only do these talk-back people have “one liners”, they also have very detailed explanations to back up their retorts. Check out the Beginner, Intermediate and Advanced tabs at:

    This likely will not change your mind because discontinuance of an ideology is a very hard thing to undergo. Evolution has shaped us to try to keep things alive, even our ideas, even if they are shown again and again to be wrong. That’s just who we are. All of us. You can say the same thing back to me and I will agree. I am indeed a stubborn SOB. Sorry about that. Blame my genetics.

  8. Stepback,

    It is not unfair, because their models have always failed for any circumstance – it is not Science as I have more than proven. It is just guessing and religion.

    Yes, I have seen that site and it does not answer the questions. It cannot answer the questions, because no one has the enough information to predict the climate as I have already shown. Science is about being able to measure things accurately – do you remember having to figure out the precision of your lab measurements. Do you understand the error bars in the equation to determine the temperature on Earth? In addition, do you understand that most of the heat on Earth is stored in the oceans?

    GLOBAL WARMING RELIGIONIST do not understand what science is. It is not about guessing, it is not about fudging the data, it is not about the majority or the consensus, it is not about precautionary principle, it is not about saying some other theory is wrong so mine must be right. What the AGW people have done is unforgivable and is destroying science.

    It is okay to be stubborn, but in science you have to be stubborn for proof of a theory, not stubborn for the disproof of a theory – that is called religion.

  9. “[I]n science you have to be stubborn for proof of a theory, not stubborn for the disproof of a theory”


    I respectfully submit that you have it backwards by a full 180 degrees.

    Science is based on the submission of falsifiable hypotheses
    and on repeated attempts to demonstrate at least one instance where the falsifiable hypothesis does not hold true. See for example the Michelson–Morley experiment:

    “The negative results are generally considered to be the first strong evidence against the then prevalent aether theory, and initiated a line of research that eventually led to special relativity, in which the stationary aether concept has no role.”

    You cannot affirmatively “prove” a scientific hypothesis to be true.
    It works only the other way. You prove it is false. It does not apply in a case where it should apply.

    I guess in this domain we have to agree that we strongly disagree.

  10. I did not want to press it out this far, but given that you open to talking about the scientific process, note that a true scientist addresses ALL reasonable attacks on a given hypothesis and keeps the door open for all new and latest attacks.

    Note therefore that the Skeptical Science people keep their comments open and transparent and, with regard to the solar forcing issue, have back and forth debates going forward at least to Nov. 2012:

  11. Stepback,

    You clearly do not understand science. And if you paid any attention I shown five hundred ways to sunday the AGW is BULLSHIT – Falsify data, not being able to predict the past or the future. I will not waste my time with you attempt to push PROPAGANDA on my website – you clearly have absolutely no interest in the truth or science.

  12. Being a student of physics I was at first taken in by the AGW crowd but as I looked into the science of AGW I was taken back by the leaps of faith. The only thing that seemed to exceed their scientific arrogance is their disdain for anyone who dared questioned them. There is plenty of evidence to support climate change but the body of evidence taken in totality does not support significant impact by human development. Consequently that is why so many alarmists have gotten caught making things up. This how we got hockey stick graphs, email-gate and even the denials of the Medieval warm period. What really got me was the attacks on the group that pointed out the need to update the network of land based temperature measurement stations. Data is sacred in true science but it seemed for the AGW crowd data was not as important as the conclusions being reached.

    The fact is we are in the third of a series of warming spells that can be historically verified. The Roman, the Medieval and the modern. The first two having been warmer than the last one based on much of the available data. If the pattern continues we are at or near the peak with cold weather ahead. If this happens it will be a true calamity as food production will plummet. Personally I would prefer the alarmist were right but conclusions must be based on science and not the other way around.

  13. @CM: That is an interesting blog you have over there, especially the part where you explain how the CMind models the LMind:

    That will help me in better understanding the CMind.

    The way I see it, most CMinds (and yes, LMinds) operate on the basis of tribalism; dividing the world into “us” versus “them” and then blocking out every piece of information that does not reek of confirmation bias.

    BTW, I am a staunch Israel supporter and very pro-patents despite being an LMind.
    So hopefully you might view me as being near the border line of your tribe if not over that line.

    When it come to AGW, the science for that one is evolving very much the way that the science for “evolution” (introduced by Darwin) evolved; with the evidence in favor of the young theory mounting in all realms even as the old guard protested that the Divine One would not have created a world where the “special”-ly clever apes are not in “His” image and where; just maybe there enough of those apes to alter the chemistries of the vast Heavens, Oceans and Earth.

    The sins that you adjudge upon the LMinds are actually the sins of your own cohorts, the close-minded CMinds. The pro-AGW scientists transparently accept all reasonable criticisms and transparently address them. That is true science. The pro-Hoax people keep throwing ad hominem epitaths, refuse to counter the rebuttals of the pro-AGW scientists and refuse to see the mounting piles of evidence on the many fronts: for example acidification of oceans, retreat of glaciers, reverse layer heating of the layers in the atmosphere, etc. You might be a student of physics and you might be an ex-pat of AGW “crowd” but in the above all you do is trade hats, putting on the pro-Hoax “crowd” cap in place of your older one. Peace,

  14. Step back,

    You get your facts wrong over and over again. AGW proponents are the ones who have lied over and over again. They have never apologized for their blatant lies. And you have failed to address these lies and you have failed to provide a AGW theory that includes why we have ICE AGEs – This will be the last comment I will allow that does not address these points

    Evolution is a legitimate scientific theory – it did not evolve it refined. The basic tenants of evolution are two and they explain a tremendous amount of data and the how the biological world works. Those two tenants are:
    1) Natural Selection – forcing function
    2) Genetic mixing

    Refinements have been consist with the basic tenants. For instance

    1a) Genetic expression based on the external environment. This did not change the basic working of the theory.
    2a) Sex and genetic mutations. Again this was a further understand but it did not change the basic theory.

    A real scientific theory explains fact and can be tested – AGW does not fit either of these. A real scientist does not push a hypothesis that consistent fails to explain the observed facts and has no predictive value. AGW is religion PERIOD.

  15. Dale:

    (1) “why we have ICE AGEs” … “address these points” … [or ELSE]
    See NOVA-What Triggers Ice Ages?:

  16. Dale:

    (2) “AGW proponents are the ones who have lied over and over again” … “address these points” … [or ELSE]

    I am assuming you are cryptically referring to ClimateGate?
    (Otherwise I have no clues what you might be referring to.)

    The so-called “trick” M. Mann’s stolen email has been explained transparently and numerous times as having to do with a fix for an anomaly in tree ring proxies.

    There was a full and open investigation on that point and Mann was exonerated.
    It is the climate “skeptics” who have never apologized.

    In so far as I can tell, you criticisms are based entirely on ad hominem vitriol and nothing else.
    Each time there is a scientific rebuttal by the pro-AGW people there should be a reasoned counter-rebuttal by the pro-Hoax people. But there isn’t. There is no Real Anti-Climate web site to counter Real Climate point by point.

  17. (2) … continued

    I am aware of the “skeptics” among you who say that Mann was not “fully” investigated:

    In that I suppose they want a conservative return to the Spanish Inquisition. put some coal fires to Mann’s feet; dunk him in the Salem witch pond enough times until he confesses … wring the “truth” out of him by one Medieval Warming technique or another

  18. “The basic tenants of evolution are [these] two” …

    The developments in our understanding of evolution are still ongoing.

    No true scientist has said we now have a total understanding of the phenomenon.

    However, what is becoming clear is that man is an animal.

    The brain of a man is not that vastly different than that of other large mammals.
    “We” are not rational beings.
    Many of the stories we tell ourselves are delusional ones.

    (If you need proof for that last statement, look no further than the “irrational” liberal members of your species … but of course there will be an “exceptionalism” clause for the libertarian members of the species, no?)

  19. Step back,

    The NOVA article is all over the map. The CO2 theory does not fit the data because CO2 usually rises after an increase in the Earth’s temperature. Once again the proponent of AWG ignore the data to fit their point of view.

    By the way NOVA did a show on the ozone layer and their evidence included farmers in the Andes that said they had seen more incidences of cataracts in their sheep’s eyes – now that’s science. They also did a show on the non-science of the Nuclear Winter – perhaps you should look at Feynman’s comments on that.

  20. Step back,

    We want truth. He clearly fudged the data to ignore the Little Ice Age – no investigation can change what I can see with my own eyes.

  21. Step back,

    You have ignored the thousands of lies spread by AWG proponents here are just a few off the top of my head:

    1) IPCC report
    2) Increases in weather events such as hurricanes – repeated by your president just the other day and clearly proven wrong over and over and over again – but the AWG people keep repeating the lie – As Goebbels said repeat a lie often enough and people will believe it is the truth.
    3) AWG have predicted the increase in temperature – another lie repeated by your president the other day – the models have not been able to predict anything – they have proven to be completely useless
    4) When the data did not fit the models, the AWG people blamed the data and then massaged the raw data to fit their theory.
    5) Melting of the Polar Ice Cap will cause severe flooding. IF the polar ice cap melts completely it will not raise the level of the ocean one millimeter – its floating ice.
    6) polar bears are losing their habitat and going extinct. The number of polar bears continues to grow.
    7) THe greenland ice mass is going to be completely melted in several decades. The fact is that greenland’s ice mass is increasing.

    NO SCIENCE would be associated with this many obvious lies. It is not SCIENCE IT IS RELIGION. IF YOU WANT TO IGNORE THE OBVIOUS DO IT SOMEWHERE ELSE.

  22. Dale,

    On these points:
    “5) Melting of the Polar Ice Cap …”
    “6) polar bears … going extinct ….”

    Let me give you some concessions

    6) The Greenies have admitted the polar bears are not going extinct. But hey, you gotta admit it sure was a good marketing ploy for the “unwashed masses”

    5) Melting of the North Pole Ice will not increase sea levels … but then again the Greenies never said it would. On the other hand, loss of reflective white ice in those areas will change the albedo factor of Planet Earth

  23. As to
    “1) IPCC report”

    You darn well know it is a political process rather than a scientific report and in some aspects it has been watered down for political reasons. Many climate scientists say the situation is far more grave than the last IPCC report admits to.

    I have to hand it to the pro-Hoax people that they are “scientists” on a grand scale. They’ve got this one experiment going that says, hey, let’s just keep pumping more and more CO2 and methane into the atmosphere and into the oceans and let’s just see what happens. This indeed is a scientific experiment … and on a grand scale. Gotta hand that to them. :-)

  24. Step back,

    You are just wrong. The greenies did say that melting the polar ice cap would raise the ocean levels, they still say that the polar bears are going extinct – see the Coke ad on point.

    It is not just the IPCC report, all of AWG is about politics and marketing not science

  25. If Antarctica (South Pole) melts, the seas will rise because that pole includes ice on land mass (and some sea ice). As you well know, water run off from a land mass does add to sea volume while floating ice does not.

    Also loss of sun-reflecting ice decreases the Earth’s albedo factor –or do you deny that too?
    (Formation of clouds requires nucleating dust particles, not just humidity.)

    Also, due to coefficient of thermal expansion, heat of oceans will increase their volumes –or do you deny that too?

  26. I am not the one denying things – I understand physics and I do not subordinate it to my political goals.

    Yes, the Antarctic melting will increase the ocean level. What does that prove?

    Yes, it might, but it might be more than offset by an increase in cloud activity – no one does or can know. So what?

    Maybe, The oceans are not isotropic thermally. Water actually is its most dense a couple of degrees above freezing.

    You still did not address all the lies.

    Do you deny that the net result of a couple of degree increase in the Earth’s surface temperature would result in longer growing seasons and more arable land?

    Do you deny that more people die from cold weather events than warm weather events?

    Do you deny that Al Gore lied about the hockey stick graph and the increase in major weather events?

    Do you deny that Western countries are net carbon sinks?

    Do you deny that AGW models have failed to predict the temperature anywhere at anytime?

    Do you deny that CO2 is a very small greenhouse gas?

    Do you deny that water vapor is the largest green house gas?

    Do you deny that the solubility of CO2 in the oceans decrease as the temperature increases?

    Do you deny that 90% of the data shows CO2 increased after the increase in global temperatures?

    Do you deny that little Ice Age happened?

    Do you deny that the hockey stick curve for global temperatures was a lie?

    I could go on forever. AWG is not science. You ignore the lies used to push the theory – excusing them as good marketing – that is not science.

  27. “Do you deny that CO2 is a very small greenhouse gas?”

    This sentence does not compute. Please explain.
    What does “a very small X gas” mean?
    What makes it “small” and in what sense?

  28. Step back you failed to answer the other questions – why?

    Yes it does make sense – the longer more accurate statement is that CO2 contributes only a small part of the overall greenhouse gas effect. In other words the amount of energy absorbed by CO2 is trivial compared to the amount of energy absorbed by water vapor – answer the questions or be deleted.

  29. Dale,

    You just self-refuted your whole theory with that last one.

    Assume Temp is a function weighted as 90% due to humidity and 10% due to CO2

    Assume amount of H2O in air increases with Temp

    Then small increase by CO2 forces more H2O into air which forces increased Temp which causes yet more H2O into air, etc. An amplified reaction due to a small player (CO2) starting the avalanche rolling.

  30. Step back,

    Your logic does not follow – and proves the absurdity of the AWG advocates like yourself. If your point was true the temperature on Earth should be infinite. If you have a EE background you should no that a positive feedback system is inherently unstable.

    That is the last IDIOTIC STATEMENT I WILL LET YOU PUBLISH – YOU FAILED TO ANSWER THE QUESTIONS – you have no interest in the truth.

  31. Dale, you meant to say “know” ;-)

  32. Dale,

    You might enjoy this “debate”:
    Published on Nov 8, 2012

    Bill McKibben and Alex Epstein square off on fossil fuels — do they make the planet a worse place to live or a better place to live?

  33. Stepback,

    Bill McKibben is a journalist and has less knowledge of science than my kids. Why would I waste my time listening to him. Or Al Gore who failed divinity school. What is it about the environmental movement that appoints people who know nothing about science. He is a typical anti-human environmentalist. He is pure evil – he makes Hitler science

    First of all the name fossil fuels is a misnomer. Natural gas starts forming in less than a month.

    Second the US is actual going to meet the Kyoto Treaty goals – not because of some fascist legislation designed to punish the successful, but because of technology. See &

    Third if Mr. McKibben had one honest bone in his body, he would have dropped the whole Climate Change non-sense after the Japanese Satellite showed that the US and Industrial Countries are net carbon sinks.

  34. I meant you would enjoy the Epstein side of the debate (although Epstein is a lawyer, not a scientist, and he uses the dismal science of “economics” as the basis of his arguments).

    As for the Japanese Satellite showing that the US and Industrial Countries are net carbon sinks, I would appreciate a link to that story. Thanks.

    (What I found was this:

    “While the study showed that western ecosystems are a strong carbon sink now, the region could experience a decline in storage potential between now and 2050, depending on future changes in land-use, climate and wildfires” )

  35. Dale,

    I was not able to track back to the original article re the alleged Japanese satellite scan.

    However, even if I take Chief FIO (scientist?) at his word and look at the JPEG he posts:

    the only green areas are Northern Canada and some parts of the Amazon
    Not really a surprise that those mostly-uninhabited areas are absorbing rather than spewing …

  36. The chart clearly shows almost all of Europe as Green and all the NE US.

    Actual the arctic areas would be surprising, since they do not have photosynthesis for most of the year and so called “old growth” forests or any biologically undisturbed area tend to have a lot of decaying matter (at least in relation to the new plant growth or other photosynthesis organisms) that puts a lot of methane and CO2 out.

  37. Hi Dale,

    Using Google search, I was finally able to track back to the original source of data.

    It seems that the CO2 flux maps are snapshots in time and it depends on whether you are looking a summer picture or a winter picture:

  38. Still does not fit the theory.

  39. Just ran across your blog and I am so glad you stated the obvious– that the temperature anywhere on earth (or in the atmosphere) is a heat transfer problem. As someone who has done plenty of relatively simple (compared to the earth!) FEA heat transfer calculations and then done detailed experiments to look for correlation I can tell you two things: (1) if you get the heat transfer calculations set up correctly they can help you get in the ballpark and make useful comparisons between different scenarios and (2) they never match the reality of expected temperatures. There are many sources of error, which is obvious to engineers who have to do this for a living.

    Using a model to show that scientists have all agreed that AGW exists is scientific and political fraud.

  40. Heat Waves: Get Used to them …

    “New data on heat-related deaths suggest that public health officials have been underestimating them, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says. It’s an especially important message as summers get longer and hotter due to climate change, and as storms that can cause widespread blackouts become more common and more intense.”

  41. What a bunch of nonsense. The media always pushes the heat waves and ignores the cold waves – which tend to kill more people.

Leave a Reply

Subscriber Count


Advertise Here

Your Ad

could be right


find out how


Coming Soon